Standing Committee G

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Education Bill

Peter Pike: There is a request for a Programming Sub-Committee, and I propose to suspend the Committee for a few minutes to allow that meeting to take place. All those who are not eligible to remain in the Room must withdraw.
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

John Heppell: I beg to move,
That the Order of the Committee [11th December] relating to programming, as amended [13th and 18th December] be amended by substituting for the entries for the ninth and tenth sittings the following— 
 9thClauses 44 to 48, Schedule 4, 11.20 am 
 10thClauses 49 to 53, Schedule 5, 
 Clauses 54 to 56, Schedule 6, 5 pm 
 Clauses 57 to 61
 We want the guillotine to move from 11.25 am to 11.20 am, and to fall between schedule 4 and clause 49. 
 Question put and agreed to.

John Heppell: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The Government are trying to be as amenable as possible to the Opposition. The Minister was disappointed that we did not discuss all the clauses on Tuesday morning. We offered the Opposition an extra three hours to debate those items, if they would make up the time later in the evening. We did not disagree that the extra three hours would be useful, but we failed to get consensus because the Opposition decided that they would agree to the extra three hours only if we moved the middle knife. I conclude from that that they were happy to debate for another three hours, as long as we made no progress. That would seem to be illogical, except for the fact that I have a copy of a letter from the Leader of the Opposition to the Conservative party chairman, which spells out the tactic of—

Peter Pike: Order. This is not really a point of order.

John Heppell: I think when I have finished, Mr. Pike, you will see that it is relevant. It is important that we place on the record that Conservatives have adopted a tactic on Standing Committees of trying to take up extra time, while sending imperfectly scrutinised legislation to the House of Lords. [Interruption.] I am sorry but that tactic is outlined in the letter from the Leader of the Opposition.

Peter Pike: Order. We have a short amount of time. I have already ruled that this is not a point of order.

Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I seek your guidance on another matter. Is it helpful for the Government Whip, in expressing his one-sided view in a highly prejudiced and silly manner, to refer to the discussions of the usual channels, which are intended to facilitate our proceedings? He quoted from a letter that I certainly have not seen. It is not the custom of the House to remark on any leaked letter. The Opposition are seeking to scrutinise an important flagship Bill under a timetable imposed by a majority on the Floor of the House that cannot be second guessed between elections. We are faced with an attempt to truncate discussions. Progress was certainly made at the last sitting, and it is completely tendentious of the Government Whip to suggest that there was any dragging out of proceedings. No tactic is being deployed in Committee that would even remotely equate to what he has suggested. The Opposition are making a genuine attempt to scrutinise the legislation properly.

Peter Pike: We have spent enough time on this matter. While I understand the points that have been made, I am a member of the Modernisation Committee and I am committed to the agreed programming system, and I am sure that those arguments will be debated again when we come to decide whether the procedures, which are still experimental, should be made permanent. It would more appropriate to debate those points then.Clause 44 Admission forums

Clause 44 - Admission forums

Stephen Timms: I beg to move amendment No. 210, in page 29, line 6, at end insert—'Admission forums'.
 I welcome you to our Committee, Mr. Pike. Your arrival coincided with a few moments of consensus across the Committee, which we seem to have lost. I am sure that amendment No. 210 will lead to a fresh outbreak of consensus. It inserts a heading into the text of the Bill. It has no impact on the meaning, but ensures that the format is in line with the rest of the Bill. I hope that the Committee will welcome it.

Phil Willis: May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike? I congratulate your town on having a fine victory in the FA cup on Saturday against Canvey Island. As a former Burnley trialist and as someone who grew up in the town, I am sure that you will bring a special glow to the proceedings and will support the comments that I am about to make.
 I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether, during future consideration of the clause and the other clauses on admissions, he will consider the issue of schools that are part boarding and part day. I refer specifically to colleges such as Wymondham college in Norfolk, which has written to the Minister—

Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. It seems to me that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) is speaking to amendment No. 233,
 which stands in my name and is tabled for discussion under clause 45. That may be a more appropriate point for his discussion to take place.

Peter Pike: I think that the point of order is valid, Mr. Willis.

Phil Willis: I was just seeking an assurance from the Minister that that important issue will appear in future Government amendments.

Peter Pike: We can deal with that when we discuss amendment No. 233. Would you agree, Mr. Timms?

Stephen Timms: Yes, I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that the issue will be addressed in Government amendments, and it will be debated.

Andrew Turner: As the Minister said, the amendment is uncontentious. I do not want to waste the Committee's time, but I would like to ask the Minister whether, in relation to amendments such as have been tabled and the more substantive parts of the Bill that will be debated today, he is willing to place on his Department's website a summary of where previous Acts have been amended. I refer to amendments to admissions policies because many people have told me that they find it difficult to consolidate schedule 4 or chapter 3 with previous enactments, especially if they do not have them to hand. They may have obtained a copy of the Bill, but not realised that they also needed copies of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Could the Minister make that promise?

Stephen Timms: That request is made from time to time: it has not been made previously in this context, but I will carefully consider it.
 Amendment agreed to.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 29, line 8, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
 The amendment gives scope for another outbreak of consensus. It would remove a requirement on local education authorities, and would enable them to make decisions that take account of appropriate circumstances in their area. There are more small local education authorities in this country than there used to be, and many now deal with only a few schools. The City of London and the Isles of Scilly are unchanged, but Rutland has only two secondary schools and the Isle of Wight has only five. If the existing arrangements work satisfactorily, we should not require LEAs to establish a system for determining admissions and other policies. We are fortunate in my constituency, because we do not have many admission authorities and there is no controversy about the arrangements. That is the case in several small LEAs, and my amendment would remove the mandatory requirement and allow them discretion.

Ivan Lewis: I join hon. Members in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. It brings back fond memories for me because the first
 Committee I was appointed to, the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee, was chaired by you. Like the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I wish to refer briefly to football. Mr. Pike, I apologise for the fact that my football team destroyed yours by winning five goals to one in the Christmas period and now heads the first division. I hope that you will not hold that against me during our proceedings.
 To return to serious matters, amendment No. 124 is consistent with other amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), in that it seeks to replace a mandatory requirement with a voluntary one. Our view on the issue is straightforward. The vast majority of stakeholders who responded to the consultation believe that we must improve admissions co-ordination and communication throughout the country. Admission forums are an appropriate structure for doing that. 
 We made it clear in the documents that we circulated that admissions decisions will remain with the admissions authorities. However, the measure is in the best interests of pupils and parents, who experience significant difficulty with admissions from time to time. We should remember that the issue may be stressful for parents. Rightly, a major concern of parents is the education of their children. It can be a worrying and anxious time for both pupil and parents if there is confusion or ambiguity about the school that the child will end up in, and if the parents do not have knowledge of that in good time. Mandatory admission forums in all parts of the country are appropriate and, on that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Turner: I did not hear anything that shows the need for the arrangement in every local authority up and down the country. The chapter does not refer to the City of London or the Isles of Scilly. There is only one school in the City of London and, I believe, only one school—it may be a secondary school—in the Isles of Scilly. Admissions arrangements are sometimes contentious in authorities with a small number of schools, but the problems would not have been solved by a forum. The contention was between a majority who accepted what was proposed and a minority who did not. The majority view will be represented through a forum in exactly the same way as it is through the local education authority at present. The Minister has not explained why a forum is necessary in my constituency, the Isles of Scilly or Rutland.

Ivan Lewis: I am tempted to respond that size does not matter, but that might be regarded as frivolous. Smaller authorities have the power under the legislation to join a neighbouring, perhaps larger, authority to create an admission forum. If an authority decided that an admission forum of its own was not necessary or appropriate, it could join a neighbouring authority to create a larger forum that would be more serviceable and use resources more sensibly. I find it difficult to understand the hon. Gentleman's problem.
 The Government carried out comprehensive, extensive consultation. Of those who responded, 78 per cent. thought that the proposal was eminently sensible and accorded with their experience of 
 admissions over the years. What is contentious about legislating to introduce a structure that supports good co-ordination, better communication and will help to remove the significant stress and anxiety that parents and pupils too often experience in this country? Problems do not arise in every authority but they do in several. That is why we want to provide a structure to minimise, if not eliminate, the possibility of problems arising in the future. Surely we have a duty and responsibility to do so, particularly when the proposal enjoys widespread and consensual support among most of the relevant stakeholders in the education sector.

Andrew Turner: I am tempted to ask the Minister how many responses the 78 per cent. represents. He is now talking about the majority of stakeholders and I doubt whether 50 per cent. of all the parents, teachers, school governors and local education authorities in the country responded. The Minister is talking about a majority of a self-selecting group of respondents to a Government consultation exercise that was conducted with many other such exercises. As consultation exercises always do, it consisted of impenetrable papers and complicated jargon quite inaccessible to the majority of users of the education service.
 I would like to know how many of my constituents responded to this exercise. The Minister has demonstrated his utter lack of knowledge of the education system in parts of the country. My local education authority does not have a neighbouring authority to which it would be convenient to join for creating an admissions forum. The Isles of Scilly may have a neighbouring authority even further away than mine, as it takes 45 minutes to travel to the mainland. It would be absurd to set up a joint Cornwall-Isles of Scilly forum, on which Cornwall would have an overwhelming preponderance of representation and the Isles of Scilly would be lucky to have one primary school governor in a corner. That would not represent the Isles of Scilly, but it would be equally absurd for the isles to set up its own admissions forums. 
 The Minister has provided no evidence of the need for such forums. The fact that local education authorities established so few admissions forums when they had the power to do so, demonstrates further that they had no desire to set them up at all. The Minister has not made a case for this proposal in any shape or form.

Ivan Lewis: I cannot promise, but I will attempt to provide the hon. Gentleman with a breakdown of responses to the consultation exercise or write to him to provide the information. If I displayed an astonishing lack of understanding of the world of education, it is not as bad as displaying an astonishing lack of knowledge of one's own constituency.
 The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of it, but the Isle of Wight specifically expressed an interest in establishing a joint forum with another education authority [Hon. Members: ''Ah''.] It is bizarre that while I am learning the trade, the hon. Gentleman remains blissfully unaware that his own constituency expressed interest in going down the road open to smaller education authorities, if they feel it is appropriate. The hon. Gentleman rubbished that as 
 an option and implied that it was a nonsensical suggestion that would not work in most cases. Only this week—and perhaps the hon. Gentleman should make a couple of phone calls to confirm it—his local education authority expressed interest in forming a joint forum.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister give way?

Ivan Lewis: No, the Minister will not.
 It all reinforces the point that was made at the outset of our proceedings. The Government believe that it is appropriate to put the measure in legislation, because it will aid co-ordination and communication. The hon. Gentleman feels that that is not appropriate and wishes the voluntary arrangement, which LEAs can opt into, to remain. That is the difference between us. If the hon. Gentleman presses the amendment to a Division, we can all place our views on the record, but I ask him to withdraw it.

Andrew Turner: The Minister has offered some additional information, which I should be grateful to receive before the Report stage. [Interruption.] He promised me information about the number of representations made from my authority, which I should like to see. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 330, in page 29, line 19, at end insert 'including religious observance'.
 I did not move amendment No. 331, but I am sure that the Minister would have been extremely disappointed if I had not moved amendment No. 330. This is a probing amendment, because it is important at this stage to ask the Minister to place on the record the Government's thinking, particularly about faith schools and the way in which admission arrangements will be organised in the light of their declared intention and the Minister's strong support for a significant expansion of faith schools. 
 I agreed when the Minister said in response to amendment No. 124 that admissions were an incredibly stressful issue for parents and children. I do not know whether you were a pupil in Burnley years ago, Mr. Pike—from your accent, I suspect that you were not—but those of us who were remember that time clearly. My brother went to Rose Grove secondary modern school, but I passed the 11-plus and went to Burnley grammar school. The huge divisions in our family and the community as a result of the awful day when the 11-plus results were announced at Rose Hill primary school are ingrained in my heart and memory. Other hon. Members will have similar recollections, so admissions problems are not new. At that time, there was a simple way of deciding who went to which school. Those who passed the 11-plus went to a particular school, and those who did not were allocated to another. Off my brother went to the secondary modern without a uniform or a bus, while I had my cap, badge, socks and all the rest.

James Purnell: Socks?

Phil Willis: Yes, we had socks as well. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not remember the days when we
 were required to have our house colours on the top of our socks. In addition, we were not allowed to wear long trousers until we went into the sixth form, and as I was 6 ft 2 at the age of 13, that was something of a problem. [Interruption.] We were allowed to wear short trousers; we did not go to school in just our underpants. In fact, we were so poor that we could not afford underpants.
 Admissions forums are not new, and it was rather disappointing that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) did not—[Interruption.]

Peter Pike: Order. I hope that hon. Members with mobile phones or other audible devices will put them on vibrate mode while they are in Committee.

Phil Willis: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight did not press his amendment. Although there were some positive responses to the consultation on admissions forums, they were by no means overwhelming, as I am sure the Minister will agree. Many of us feel that forcing local authorities to accept a particular form of organisation is unacceptable. They are perfectly capable of organising admissions, as they have done for decades, in a modern way that is compatible with Government thinking. However, the clause provides for admission forums.
 The job of the forums will change as a result of the powers to innovate. The Minister has failed to take one factor fully into account. If significant changes are made to the way in which schools innovate and a plethora of new specialist schools exercise their 10 per cent. right to select by aptitude—technically speaking, half the schools in Britain could do so by 2005—so we have an acceleration of voluntarily aided, single faith schools with their own admission arrangements, we will have a different situation from the one for which the Minister is legislating in the Bill. The job of the forums would become incredibly complicated. It is important, therefore, that we give them and local authorities as much flexibility as possible in deciding the overall framework for admissions. That is partly the reasoning for the amendment. 
 I congratulate the Minister on the school admissions regulations for the admission forums. They were very helpful and answered many of the questions on which I was lobbied when the Bill was published. I have one question, which is that if a school, at the request of its governors, were taken over by a private sector company, would members of that company's board be allowed on the admission forum in the category of 
''other persons, not being members of the LEA but who appear to the core members to represent the interests of any section of the local community''?
 That is an important issue and I should like the Minister to respond to it. 
 Page 2 of the proposals details the 
''Issues for forums to consider and advise on'',
 and provides an extremely helpful list. Throughout, it says that schools are part of broader communities, not just entities in their own right. The list includes 
''how well existing and proposed admission arrangements serve the interests of local children and parents; reaching local agreement on new or controversial issues; the comprehensiveness and accessibility of the LEA's admissions literature and information for parents; local co-ordinated arrangements'',
 and all point rightly to the fact that the forum and the LEA must take wider issues into consideration when developing an admissions policy. It is helpful that the Government have made that clear. 
 I am sure that the Minister will agree that the creation of more single faith schools could have a serious impact on other schools' admissions. One does not have to be a genius to work out that in an authority like mine, where there are six high quality comprehensive schools, of which two are church schools, the creation of another church school would have a significant impact on the schools that are not single faith. That is stating the obvious; it is not rocket science to work that out. I am arguing that the admission forums and local authority should be able to consider grounds of religion in deciding the admissions policy. 
 Although you are slightly older than me, Mr. Pike, we are both of an age to know that faith schools have been around a long time. Following the Education Act 1870, there was an attempt to fill the gaps in primary education that were left by the National Society, which provided Anglican schools, and the British and Foreign School Society, which provided non-conformist schools. It was not until Butler's Education Act 1944 that we saw the present arrangements for funding secondary schools and school transport. Those who take a keen interest in the issue—as many Committee members do—will know that most of the school transport arrangements arose from the 1944 Act. 
 Since then, there has been a general concordat that in return for funding and transport, there would be no expansion of faith schools, particularly at secondary level. That worked extremely well until the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which let the genie out of the bottle. It made it clear that other faiths could receive state funding for the establishment of schools in the same way as other voluntary-aided schools from the Church of England, Roman Catholic Church and the Methodists. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) had little option at the time, and Liberal Democrat policy supported him. It was illiberal to say that Anglicans could have schools but Muslims could not. I accept that point. 
 We have had some arguments about this, so I want to make it clear to the Minister that, like him, I speak from the basis of having a strong faith that has been an important part of how I conduct my life and business since I discovered it during my work in Chapeltown many years ago. I have no objection in principle to faith schools, and our policy is not to dismantle them and create a secular system. The amendment is aimed at trying to convince the Government that we cannot have an unbridled expansion of faith schools without 
 considering its impact. We must ensure that admission arrangements protect the broader community from segregation, of which we have seen the worst effects in Northern Ireland, parts of the United States and other countries where there is a sharp division in schools in religion and race. 
 Had the Government not made comments about wanting to extend the number of faith schools and encouraged the Church of England in its quest to establish another 100 secondary schools, we would not be having this debate. Everyone got along fairly well together, and there was no great demand from the Muslim community for single faith schools. The Minister can tell us how many have been created since 1998, but I believe that it is only three, so we are not talking about huge numbers. However, Lord Dearing's report, ''The Way Ahead: Church of England schools in the new millennium'' clearly showed that the Church of England wanted to create another 100 schools to fill the gaps and to be on a par with Roman Catholic secondary school provision. An argument in favour of that was that the Church of England has a significant number of primary schools. That is historic. The Church of England has generally provided primary education in villages throughout the country successfully and harmoniously. To be fair, the Roman Catholics have done the same, and there is no great problem with that. The issues arise at secondary level. 
 The problem has arisen through encouragement by the Prime Minister, who has been clear about his own faith and his belief in church schools. The Minister has also made his views clear. The Government's position was clear in the Green Paper and in the White Paper, and we have also had the Government's unilateral decision to reduce the capital requirement of faith schools from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent. without any debate in the House of Commons. That was a major decision that affected the capital requirements of schools and directly affected local authorities, but there was no debate about it. The decision was taken by the Department for Education and Skills to further a policy that has appeared by stealth over the past two years. 
 The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister have stated openly that the basis for the Government's policy is their belief that church schools do better than other schools. I flatly refute that argument. There is only slim evidence that that is the case. The research paper that was produced for the Bill shows that examination results of five A to Cs are better in Church of England schools, and I accept that logic. 
 However, one must consider the make-up of Church of England secondary schools and the number of free school meals in those schools. It is a pity that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Wales is not here today, because the National Assembly has done some excellent research that shows that when the other factors are taken into account, church schools do not do significantly better than other schools. 
 It is clear that church schools do well because they have superb head teachers. There are two such schools in my constituency—St. Aidans and St. John Fisher—
 which the Minister has visited. I regard Dennis Richards at St. Aidans as the best head teacher with whom I have ever had the pleasure to work. The school also has a largely committed parent body that supports the youngsters. If the catchment area is broadly middle class, the leadership is excellent and the parents are supportive, the school will be successful, because those are the ingredients for success. I defy the Minister to say anything different.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman mentioned my visit to St. Aidans in his constituency, which works closely with St. John Fisher. They jointly organise sixth form provision, which is a good example of partnership in which we envisage faith schools increasingly taking part. Given the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric about faith schools, I was impressed by the school and was intrigued to discover that the chairman of the governing body is his constituency assistant. She made a good speech that celebrated the value of the faith ethos of the school, which is rather different from the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Is the hon. Gentleman changing the policy of the Liberal Democrats? He has been hostile to the concept of faith schools up to now, but he sounds more accommodating this morning.

Phil Willis: I object to those comments. The Government are thrusting a policy on us without debate, so I have every right to question and scrutinise it.
 It is unfair of the Minister to bring my casework into the debate. That is rather below his usual standards. I have always been at pains to point out that some church schools are brilliant and turn out good products. Where I, Bishop Blackburn and Canon Hall, the chief executive of the Church of England's schools board, stand is fundamentally different from where the Minister stands. I believe that church schools, like those in my constituency, should be run by faiths for communities. They should not be run for faiths, which is fundamentally different. 
 One positive aspect of religion—and it applies not just to the Church of England or Roman Catholicism, but to Islam, Sikhism and Greek Orthodoxy—is that it brings value systems into schools. I have no objection to using such values as part of a school's ethos, but I have a fundamental objection to the state paying for the promulgation of a faith within a school. That is wholly unacceptable.

Stephen Timms: My understanding of the two excellent schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is that they have a 100 per cent. faith requirement. Is that not associated with the high level of parental commitment that he identified as being at the core of their success?

Phil Willis: I have already admitted that. I acknowledged that various factors contribute to highly successful schools—mainly middle class catchments, supportive parents and excellent leadership with a clear direction. A faith is not necessary to achieve success. King James's school in Knaresborough is another brilliant school in my constituency with a real sense of purpose and direction achieved through its technology and
 teacher training status and so forth. I am most proud of the fact that my constituency has the largest ecumenical sixth form in Britain.
 I disagree with the Secretary of State who said on Second Reading that faith schools should have tangential relationships with each other; it should be a fundamental bringing together of Roman Catholics, Church of England and others. Both schools in my constituency include some youngsters who do not have a faith. It is simply not the case that 100 per cent. have a faith. Surely the Minister would accept that. 
 We should not be encouraging schools to be run for faiths, but promoting the coming together of faiths. We want far more ecumenical work in schools. We should encourage the multi-faith schools that have been so successful in Liverpool, which is very much a polarised city in terms of religion. The Minister should visit Liverpool to see those schools at work. 
 The amendment is designed to question the Government's thinking. An excellent research paper points out that support for more faith schools has not come from the public. An NOP survey showed that only one in 10 people were strongly supportive of having more faith schools. The National Union of Teachers, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the National Association of Head Teachers, the Secondary Heads Association and the Local Government Association have all strongly questioned whether the policy will bring communities together and offer a broad education.

Ashok Kumar: Although the hon. Gentleman is right to say that those organisations have not supported an increase in faith schools, what about the Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities at grass roots level? Those groups want that increase, and in those circumstances it is difficult for the Government to push the process forward. He has overlooked that.

Phil Willis: I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I regard him as a friend in this House, but I have not disregarded that. I visit Bradford often, and I also visited Oldham and the hon. Gentleman's constituency recently. I accept that elements of those communities have made demands. It would be absolutely wrong to say that the massed ranks of the Muslim community want their children educated in Muslim schools. When I visited Dixons city technology college in Bradford, it was interesting to meet Muslim, Sikh and Hindu youngsters who declared that they and their parents wanted good schools. They were happier to work with their white counterparts in Bradford, rather than being in ethnic ghetto schools, which was the exact phrase one of them used. The evidence is, and the Minister knows it full well, that fewer than one in 10 people regularly go to church or are a member of a single faith group. The national demand that the Prime Minister—

Ivan Lewis: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman about that last point. As participation in organised religion has undoubtedly declined, it is interesting that the number of parents wanting to send their children
 to faith-based schools has increased considerably. Does that not say something powerful about parental choice?

Peter Pike: Order. I have allowed you to range widely, as I think that you have recognised, Mr. Willis. I hope that you will now return to the amendment and move towards a conclusion.

Phil Willis: You have been most generous, Mr. Pike, but the Committee will appreciate that the issue is important. I am grateful to the Minister for raising that point because it is the big flaw in his argument. The Minister must listen to my answer: if he considers his league tables, he will notice that at the bottom of those tables—which I find quite abhorrent—are a significant number of church schools. That is absolutely true. If the Minister can tell me that there is a clamour from parents who want to go to those schools, I shall sit down, but there is not.

Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: No, I want to finish making my point. Parents want their kids to go to good schools. I want any community to have access to good schools.

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman did not address the specific point that I raised. Never mind league tables or other diversionary issues: it is a fact that as adult participation in organised religion has declined—there is no dispute about that—the percentage of parents who choose to and wish to send their children to a faith based school has significantly increased. That is a fact.

Phil Willis: With the greatest respect, the Minister knows that that is not a fact. Neither he nor his Department have any evidence to support it because they have not collected statistics to back it up. The Department said that it thinks that that is the case. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) will jump to his feet now and tell me that the 161 grammar schools—

Graham Brady: One hundred and sixty-five.

Phil Willis: The number has increased since our last debate. Significant numbers of children apply to go to the 165 grammar schools, for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman—

Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: It is getting exciting. I shall give way to the hon. Lady.

Caroline Flint: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Rossington high school in my constituency. It is not near the top in any league table for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman, such as the catchment area, which is a poor mining village. However, the school is applying to become a Church of England secondary school.
 The hon. Gentleman earlier raised the matter of admissions policies. Will he comment on the statement made by the diocese in response to the question, 
''Would not a church school be divisive and deny places to children who were not of the faith?''
 In reply, the diocese said: 
''The ultimate aim is the establishment of an inclusive school that serves all the Rossington community and is a positive force in the school's quest for continual improvement in attainment.''
 It also said that although it may be open to children of the faith outside the catchment area, the children of Rossington will come first in terms of the admission policy, whether they are of the faith or not.

Phil Willis: I could kiss the hon. Lady. She has succinctly supported the amendment, the aim of which is not to stop the expansion of faith schools. I will do that at another time and in another place. What I propose is not controversial—the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) put her finger on the button. I want faith schools of the future to be inclusive, not to become exclusive and to turn away at their gates children of the local community because they are not of that faith or because they are of other faiths. It is abhorrent that a school in a largely Muslim area deliberately sets out to deny Muslim children access to the school. It is equally abhorrent that in one Lancashire Church of England school—I will not name it in Committee, but I shall do so privately if anyone asks me to do so—the policy deliberately sets out to stop people of a different denomination of that faith from getting in because they are not good enough to go to that school. That is not acceptable, and it should not be acceptable to a Labour Government.
 The admission forum and the local authority should have the right to tell all their schools that they cannot be entirely exclusive in terms of their faith. As the Cantle report on the riots in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford, and as Lord Ouseley recommended, all the schools should be obliged to take children of other faiths and of no faith. If the Minister is right that people are clamouring to get their children into those schools, we should consider why they are doing so. We should ask what is the quality of the school's leadership and what it is they offer, which should be open to all. Youngsters in many constituencies, including yours and mine, Mr. Pike, are denied access to the so-called good schools by an accident of birth. That is not right. 
 The amendment seeks from the Minister an assurance that in future no church school will deny children access because they are not of that faith or of have faith.

Graham Brady: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. It is a pleasure to see you, although I hope that we have not worn out two Chairmen already. I am sure that we have not, because they are such estimable Chairmen.
 We have had a wide-ranging debate on the amendment, so I intend to be brief. Initially, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough went very wide by recalling the old debate about grammar schools and secondary moderns. He took us right back to the 1950s or perhaps even earlier.

Andrew Turner: The 1870s.

Graham Brady: Indeed. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman's good fortune was to go to school wearing socks, while his brother was forced to go to school sockless. I cannot help observing that had his parents had his egalitarian zeal, they would have given
 each child one sock, which would have been a fairer outcome, but enough of that.
 I am sure that we shall return to the question of faith schools later in our proceedings and perhaps later in the Bill's progress, but it is important to comment briefly now on the official Opposition's position. We support, and have always supported, the freedom of parents to have the maximum choice in the schools that are available to them. 
 I have not checked the Hansard record of the Committee that considered the School Standards and Framework Bill in 1998, but I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and I tabled an amendment that was designed to facilitate schools of whatever faith community becoming part of the maintained sector. I cannot recall whether the amendment was selected, but we have always been clear, as has been said, that it would be wrong to allow Church of England, Roman Catholic and Jewish schools, but not Muslim or other faith schools. 
 The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough seems to have reached the position, which I am not sure is tenable, that faith schools are acceptable and perhaps even a good thing as long as they have no faith requirement or overly religious content.

Phil Willis: I never said that.

Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman's position is clear. He does not feel that it is acceptable for schools to specify the pupils whom they admit on grounds of faith, but it is difficult to see how a Church of England school with no Anglican children could function as a faith school in a meaningful sense.
 I think that the Minister for School Standards is in a different part of this territory. In an intervention on the hon. Gentleman, he said that underlying the strong parental involvement in and support for schools in Harrogate and Knaresborough was the near 100 per cent. faith involvement in those schools. 
 The Conservative party's position is that schools must largely have control of their admissions policies. It would be dangerous to suggest that faith schools be prohibited from selecting their intake on the basis, partly at least, of pupils' faith.

Ashok Kumar: The hon. Gentleman's party supports faith schools, and he says that it is important to have people of the relevant faith in those schools. Does he believe in religious education or religious instruction in those schools? There is a wide gap between the two, and the answer to that question will determine his party's position.

Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The issue may go even wider than that to the ethos of the school, what we have a right to expect a maintained school to teach and how we would expect such a school to educate pupils in the broadest sense. Apart from the national curriculum requirements, which might be suspended for some schools, according to earlier discussions in the Committee it is legitimate to impose equality of treatment for boys and girls and other requirements and expectations. It is proper that faith schools should
 be able to instruct in their faith and maintain the religious ethos of the school.
 We each have the perspective of our own experience. There are Church of England and Roman Catholic primary schools and three Roman Catholic secondary schools in my constituency. The environment in which they operate gives the lie to anyone who makes the superficial argument that faith schools per se cause social or religious divisions within a community. Clearly, they do not. The Blessed Thomas Holford school, an extremely good Roman Catholic high school in Altrincham, has been in the maintained sector for a long time. My constituency also has two Roman Catholic grammar schools, St. Ambrose college and Loreto convent school. As a brief aside, that school was an independent school maintained by charitable trusts. It was so attracted by grant-maintained status that it opted in to the maintained sector. That is a good illustration of the attractiveness of the former grant-maintained regime. 
 The diversity of provision works well in the interests of local parents who can make a choice about the schooling of their children on the basis of religion, as well as other aspects.

Ashok Kumar: The hon. Gentleman mentioned diversity. On the principle of diversity, would his party support a Muslim faith school that decided that the girls should wear the hijab?

Graham Brady: I made it clear in my earlier comments that there are expectations which may appropriately be placed on maintained schools regarding, for example, equality of treatment for boys and girls. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of a case regarding the wearing of school uniforms at the Secretary of State's former school. Such an issue is difficult and must be handled with sensitivity. The school handled it sensibly, and came to a reasonable settlement that maintained the ethos of the school. It was not a Muslim school.

Ashok Kumar: So the hon. Gentleman believes in limited diversity, and that the demands of faith schools should be limited.

Graham Brady: Inevitably, we must consider trade-offs when we discuss maintained schools and taxpayers' money. It is proper and reasonable for the state to have a view about what is acceptable in such schools. I do not advocate maintained schools of any religion or sect behaving in whatever way they see fit, without any regulation. However, it is crucial to consider why faith and church schools work well. Anglican, Roman Catholic and Jewish schools have worked well for many years. On principle, it would be wrong to deny such forms of education to those of other faiths, and I hope that all members of the Committee take that view.

Chris Grayling: I do not know whether my hon. Friend shares my experience of faith schools. Church of England schools tend to be better at supporting, encouraging and educating pupils of all religious backgrounds in the full range of religious beliefs, knowledge and understanding. In recognising
 and being sympathetic to the various cultural dimensions of children of other religions, pupils develop a greater sensitivity towards other faiths in faith schools than in many non-faith schools.

Peter Pike: Order. Can we try to keep a bit closer to the amendment before us? I know that they are important issues.

Graham Brady: These are important and far-reaching issues, but I shall certainly try to keep closer to the amendment. I have been led down various paths. I shall try to resist the blandishments of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
 Crucially, there is a question mark over the genesis—if that is not an inappropriate term—of the Government's policy. I fear that the Government hit upon the idea of an expansion of faith schools based on the broad statistical fact that church schools tend to perform better than the generality of schools. They then fell into the trap of believing that church schools will be good schools, and that if more church schools are created the quality of education as a whole will rise. I caution Ministers not to believe that that is necessarily the case. Parents want good schools: that underlies the debate and the demand that the Under-Secretary flagged up. There is a dearth of good schools in many areas. If parents know of a good church school nearby, they will want to send their children to it or to one like it. There is a danger that the Government see the success of existing church schools as an easy route to raising standards overall. 
 I said at the outset that I did not want to speak at length. We will deal with this issue on later amendments in more detail. It is an extremely important debate. I hope that I have made it clear that the Government's policy of allowing an expansion of faith schools where there is demand—

Phil Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Brady: I gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Phil Willis: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his remarks. He is not addressing the fundamental part of the amendment. Does the Conservative party believe that school admissions policies should be able deliberately to exclude all children in those communities, other than those of a single faith?

Graham Brady: I probably responded to the amendment very much in the spirit that the hon. Gentleman proposed it. We may have wandered from the particular words on the amendment paper. His last comment bears little relation to the substance of his amendment. Certainly, church schools and faith schools should be able to take faith issues into account in their admissions policies.

Phil Willis: One hundred per cent.

Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman is trying to lead me where I do not want to go. We should stress the essentially liberal point that, if parents want a particular religious context for the education of their children, they should be able to have that whenever possible. It is worrying that the Liberal Democrat position now appears to be that faith should not be
 taken into account in the admissions process of existing faith schools as well as new faith schools. That is regrettable. I support the Government's thinking, in so far as it enhances parental choice, but I give a strong warning that Ministers must not fall into the trap of regarding an expansion of faith schools as a shortcut or an easy route to raising school standards overall.

Ivan Lewis: It is clear that this is an important and emotive issue. There are tremendous passions on all sides of the argument. It is appropriate that we use a variety of forums for a mature debate. Before addressing the wider issues raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough I shall respond to one or two of his specific questions. He asked me about the representation of private companies on the forum. If a private company is involved in a city academy or a city technology college, a representative of that company on its governing body would be eligible to stand for election to the forum, but only in his capacity as a governor of the institution. A head teacher of one those institutions would have the same right to be a member of an admission forum in that capacity, but not as a representative of a private company per se.

Phil Willis: Could a representative of 3 E's, which runs the Kings College in Guildford, be a member of the forum, not as a head or governor but as one of those other persons
''not being members of the LEA who appear to the core members to represent the interests of any section of the local community''?

Ivan Lewis: If it were felt that a private sector company played a significant role in education within the relevant area, although not linked to an individual institution, the forum could decide that it was appropriate to include a representative of that company.
 In response to the hon. Gentleman's comment about the reduction in capital liability of voluntary-aided schools from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent., there is a legitimate debate to be had about whether that is a desirable objective. We made it clear in our election manifesto that that was our intention. It is unfair to accuse us of not allowing or encouraging any form of debate in the House. The measure will be implemented through a regulatory reform order procedure. There will be the opportunity to have a significant and comprehensive debate. 
 I turn now to faith schools. Unless I missed it, both hon. Members who spoke ignored one important issue. Since 1997, a number of the requests to become voluntary-aided schools and to move into the maintained sector have come from schools that were operating in the private sector without any requirement to deliver the national curriculum and without being subject to the same accountability, transparency and standards. That is an important factor to take into account in the context of the debate. Many parents choose to send their children to private sector schools because of their religious or cultural ethos. Surely it is good if pupils attending those schools return to the state sector. It is in the best 
 interest of pupils to have access to the same curriculum, standards and inspection regimes and, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, to feel part of the family of schools in the community. 
 It is right to find ways of bringing pupils back into the maintained sector. We should be realistic and honest enough to acknowledge that parents who choose to send their children to private faith schools would be unlikely to send them to schools in the maintained sector if the faith-based option were not available to them. Parents' beliefs and values are important, so maintaining faith-based schools within the state sector provides a viable and valued option. 
 The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is extremely knowledgeable about the whole education sector and he is an individual of great integrity. I say that not just to butter him up. However, an intellectual inconsistency is evident in what he and others say about faith schools. 
 Fundamental criticisms have been expressed in Committee and elsewhere about faith schools, which have existed for many years and made a massive contribution to education in this country. Arguing for change in a big way amounts to asserting that faith-based schools as historically and currently constituted have made and are making a negative contribution to society. If faith schools are making a negative contribution to community cohesion and relationships between people, it would be far more honest—and politically brave—to come off the fence and admit it. 
 Single faith schools most concern the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. As I understand it, the majority of faith schools through history have been predominantly single faith. It is perfectly respectable and reasonable to criticise such schools on the basis that the concept of a single faith school is negative and undermines the very fabric of the society that we all want to live in. That is a consistent argument, but it is inconsistent to maintain that position while acknowledging that some single faith schools are good.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind comments.
 I shall try to explain my views in a nutshell. The Minister has mistaken my position and that of my party. I want children who are not linked to a particular faith or who have other faiths to have access to good faith schools. I want the Government to ensure that no faith school can, through its admissions policy, discriminate against children of other faiths or of no faith. Kids in my and other constituencies should have access to those schools irrespective of their particular faiths. The Minister seems unable fully to appreciate that concept.

Ivan Lewis: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but he should understand that some parents choose a particular school for their children precisely because it is a single faith school or predominantly of one faith. That is a significant part of a school's attraction to a parent. Whether we believe it is right or reasonable for parents to choose on that basis, we
 must respect the principle of parental choice. Parents choose a school for a range of reasons.
 I agree that it is wrong to present all single faith schools as good, or to claim that they are the only schools with a strong ethos, sound principles and good leadership. That is nonsense. Some faith schools are excellent and some are under-performing. However, if the hon. Gentleman is arguing that as many levers as possible should be put into the system to prevent the creation of single faith schools, he is effectively denigrating their contribution over many years to this country's education as negative, destructive and divisive. If that is what he is arguing, I respect his position, but I cannot agree with him.

Phil Willis: Will the Minister give way?

Ivan Lewis: In a moment. I disagree with that analysis of the contribution that faith schools have made to the development of the British education system. Evidence suggests that such schools have met parental preferences and provided young people with high quality education. It is wrong to put those schools in a box labelled ''bad for society, undermines the fabric and cohesion of society''.

Phil Willis: The record will show that I have never uttered any such comments about faith schools. I have been at pains to point out that some faith schools are excellent. Why cannot the Minister understand that the purpose of the amendment is to prevent faith schools from excluding youngsters of no faith or of other faiths? Parents in a local community who want their children to go to the good church school should be able to send them there even though they do not share the particular faith. That is my point, not that faith schools are bad schools or harmful to society.

Ivan Lewis: I realise that the hon. Gentleman did not say that. I am explaining my view of his perception of the historical and current contribution of single faith schools. The clear corollary of his and his party's position is that faith schools undermine the community and society that most of us want to create.
 I want to make another point, though it does not relate to anything that the hon. Gentleman has said in Committee, and I respect the fact that he has not used these arguments. I disagree with the people who jumped on the bandwagon after 11 September and the summer disturbances in northern towns—including those in the constituency of our Chairman—and used those incidents to justify their opposition to the principle of faith-based education. They used current events to justify an intellectual position that they had held before. The hon. Gentleman, to his credit, has not used that argument as a justification for the position that he and his party hold.

Ashok Kumar: I am not one of those who jumped on the bandwagon. As a liberal humanist all my life, I have seen the danger of faith schools. I understand the Minister's point, but the recent examples that we have seen in Northern Ireland have worried me. The
 division between the Catholic and Protestant communities is an example on our doorstep.

Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. We are having an important debate about crucial issues that prompt strong feelings on both sides of the Committee. The matters must be dealt with, whether now or later. I make no criticism of the Minister, who has given a full response to what was a full opening speech by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I spoke briefly in the debate, and I do not think that the Government Whip or any other Member could believe that Opposition Members have attempted to delay proceedings this morning.
 However, under the programme motion that was agreed first thing this morning, a knife will fall in approximately 19 minutes. Given the way that discussions are proceeding, I would be surprised if clauses 45 to 48 and schedule 4 were not left unconsidered by the Committee. Important amendments have been tabled for consideration; I draw attention to amendment No. 233, which deals with the concerns of the state boarding school sector. If we do not reach such amendments, the Committee will have had no opportunity to consider adequately this part of the Bill.

Peter Pike: I am bound by the programme motion that was agreed by the Committee this morning. A change could be made only if a request was made to suspend the Committee for a short meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee. I would be prepared to accept that, but otherwise I must follow what was agreed at the start of this morning's proceedings.

Graham Brady: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Pike, and I request a short meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee.

John Heppell: If there had been this concern, it should have been raised at the Programming Sub-Committee this morning, when we could have dealt with it. I tried to make this point earlier. We have offered the Opposition extra time on several occasions, but they have refused it, so they should not now complain about not reaching particular clauses or amendments. If they want to propose any amendment to the programme motion for extra time, we will be happy to consider it. If they want to start early, work late or even sit on a Wednesday, we will consider it. I must point out that the information from the Opposition, which in effect said that they would try deliberately to—

Peter Pike: Order. Unless the Government indicate that there is any useful purpose served by suspending Committee for a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee, there is no point in me allowing it. At this stage, I cannot see any indication of that possibility. That does not stop any informal proceedings, and if the Government Whip indicated within the available time that a suspension would be useful, I would be prepared to allow it. However, we do not have much time.

Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I was hoping to intervene on the amendment and did
 not do so because we were having an extremely wide debate. I am not criticising you, Mr. Pike, but much of it was wide of the amendment, particularly the comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. His contention of what the amendment would provide for is simply inaccurate. New clause 4, which has mysteriously disappeared from the amendment paper, would have provided for that debate. The hon. Gentleman seems to have chosen to use that debate for this amendment.

Peter Pike: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. This is my first Committee in the Chair, and I was extremely lenient during the debate. I cannot turn back the clock. The only procedure that I could follow would be for a short suspension of Committee for a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee. If the Government Whip indicated that it would serve any useful purpose, I would be prepared to accept that, otherwise we are just wasting what is already limited time.

Ivan Lewis: I shall try to move on swiftly. I pointed out what I believe is consistent with the position that was articulated by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. [Interruption.] This is a first in my experience: a walkout by the Official Opposition.

John Heppell: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. It should be recorded that the Conservative Front Bench spokesmen have walked out of the Committee and are not using what little time—

Peter Pike: Order. The point has been made.

Ivan Lewis: This issue will continue to be debated, but I must respond to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), which I failed to do earlier. We would all accept that the behaviour and actions of people in Northern Ireland in recent weeks is intolerable and heinous. The problems of Northern Ireland are much more complex and cannot be related merely to faith-based education.
 That was my point in relation to Bradford, Burnley and Oldham. There are deep-rooted difficulties in some of our towns, and we have a responsibility to address them. I do not part company from those who have identified faith schools as an issue in the debate about why those disturbances occurred and how we bring together people from different religions, cultures and backgrounds. However, some people have claimed that faith-based education is the primary cause of such difficulties in communities and society. I do not accept that premise. 
 I remind the Committee of the basis on which a new school must apply if it wishes to establish itself in the maintained sector. It would have to apply to a local school organisation committee, which would then decide whether the creation of the new school was in the interests of, broadly, the local community and, narrowly, the family of schools. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough knows that the Secretary of State has given some initial suggestions on the guidance that will be available to those committees, although more detail will follow. That guidance will make it clear that a new faith-based 
 school must demonstrate either a partially inclusive admissions policy or, if it does not feel that that is appropriate, a commitment to and strategy for working with other schools in the area of another faith or no faith. A new school must be approved by the school organisation committee, which would make a statement about whether establishment of the school would be in the best interests of the local community. The decision would be made according to guidance from the Secretary of State, and would address the issues of collaboration and partnership and the need to bring young people of different religious and cultural backgrounds together. The introduction in September of citizenship education as a statutory part of the national curriculum will be an important step forward in encouraging young people to think about and discuss mutual respect and tolerance of people from different religious and cultural backgrounds. 
 I wish to conclude by telling the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that his amendment will not achieve the objectives that he articulated in his lengthy presentation. The legislation gives admission forums the power to form a view and express an opinion on admissions criteria for all schools, including faith schools. They will not be able to change admissions policies, but they will be able to express an opinion, which must be taken into account by the school. However, responsibility for admissions policy will remain with the school. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak. A considerable amount of the Committee's time has been wasted, because it appears that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough does not understand either the clause that he wishes to amend or his own amendment. The clause is clear on the powers of admission forums. It says that they can advise admissions authorities on
''such other matters connected with the admission of pupils'',
 but he wants to add ''including religious observance.'' It is an advisory body, yet he wasted much time on new clause 4, which was on the amendment paper at the last sitting but has now disappeared for some reason. 
 At the beginning of the sitting, the hon. Gentleman attempted to discuss amendment No. 233. We would have reached it had he not so clearly misunderstood the purpose of clause 44 and his amendment. Neither of the objectives that he described in his introduction, the length of which the Minister noted, could have been achieved by the amendment. He wasted our time by trying to persuade us that that was not the case. 
 I share with the hon. Gentleman a great interest in the future of religious schools and in the Government's proposals for the creation of more faith schools. I do not necessarily share his opinions, but I share his interest. The issues could have been discussed under new clause 4 had he not withdrawn it from the amendment paper, as I assume he did. However, he raised several issues at enormous length, and I wish to deal with some of them. 
 The hon. Gentleman argued with the assertion of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and 
 Sale, West that he not only wanted to amend the admissions policies of faith schools, but the Liberal Democrats objected to the transmission of faith within the maintained sector. Speaking from a sedentary position, he denied that that was the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West responded and referred to admissions policies. As the Minister said from a sedentary position—I, too, put it on record—the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the Committee does not think it appropriate that faith schools should be used for the transmission of faith. 
 If the hon. Gentleman believes that I have misrepresented him, perhaps he will say so. I seem to have got it right. 
 The hon. Gentleman consistently denied the Minister's assertion about his reasons for objecting to the admissions policies of faith schools. The Minister said, fairly, that if one wishes so effectively to undermine the admissions policies of state schools, there must be a jolly good reason for doing so, and he thought that perhaps that jolly good reason was that faith schools were so damaging to communities that they should be destroyed. That was what the Minister asserted that the hon. Gentleman believed. The hon. Gentleman denied it but he gave no other reason. In the absence of any other reason being given by the Liberal Democrats, we must draw our own conclusions. I should be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to give a reason. 
 The Liberal Democrats have been hostile to faith schools since time immemorial, certainly since 1870. I remind the hon. Gentleman that church schools existed in this country and were doing an excellent job long before the state education system was born or even thought of and it is no good his pretending, without reason, that he can undermine faith schools as new clause 4 and the amendment propose. There must be a reason, and I want to know what it is. The only reason that the hon. Gentleman has given is that some children who are nearer to a faith school than others who happen to be of the faith may be turned away. If that is his reason, if he is saying that we have to draw a line round the London Oratory school—I take that example at random because I was speaking to the headmaster last night—and it admits, say, 240 boys a year—

Ivan Lewis: Was the hon. Gentleman negotiating a contract?

Andrew Turner: The Minister will be glad to know that I was doing no such thing.
 As I was saying, if we draw a line around the London Oratory school to include 240 boys—or however many it admits—who live in the area, it would just about reach Fulham Broadway station. Such is the attractiveness and popularity of that school, that under the hon. Gentleman's proposal, it would be prevented from taking its historic mission to the Catholic children of London, which is the purpose for which that school, St. Luke's school, Portsmouth, 
 and Catholic schools throughout the country were established. As an Anglican, I accept that it is not the same as the purpose for which Anglican schools were established. 
 What the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is proposing would mean the destruction of most of the Catholic education system and a good part of the Anglican education system. If the hon. Gentleman dislikes the Bluecoat school in Liverpool or is hostile to the Bluecoat school in Oldham, it would help if he said so.

Ivan Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is possible that the reason why the clause was withdrawn is straightforward? It is the political consequence of the Liberal Democrats appearing to articulate the destruction of a significant majority of faith based schools, and the reaction of the leader of that party when he realised the implications if new clause 4 were to be accepted. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Andrew Turner: It is an entirely reasonable assumption. The leader of the Liberal Democrats is notorious for taking a laid-back approach to politics. However, I suspect his laying back has been sadly jolted by the understanding of what would happen if new clause 4 were to be implemented or if—and thank goodness it cannot be—the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough's amendment were accepted.
 It being twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman, proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001] and the Order of the Committee [11, 13 and 18 December 2001], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Amendment negatived. 
 The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Question put, That clauses 44 to 46 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clauses 44 to 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Admission appeals

Amendment proposed: No. 287, in page 32, line 26, at end insert: 
'(5C) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (5A)(b) may provide for any of the provisions of sections 173 to 174 of the Local Government Act 1972 (allowances to members of local authorities and other bodies) to apply with prescribed modifications in relation to members of an appeal panel.'—[Mr. Timms.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Question put, That clause 47, as amended, and clause 48 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to 
 Clause 47, as amended, and clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 - Admission arrangements

Amendments proposed: No. 304, in page 135, line 7, at end insert 'in paragraph (b),'. 
 No. 305 in page 135, line 33, at end insert: 
'(3B) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3A)(c) may provide for any of the provisions of sections 173 to 174 of the Local 
Government Act 1972 (allowances to members of local authorities and other bodies) to apply with prescribed modifications in relation to members of an appeal panel.'
 No. 306, in page 137, leave out lines 1 to 9.—[Mr. Timms.] 
 Question put, That the amendments be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Question put, That schedule 4, as amended, be the Fourth schedule to the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to. 
 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock, till this day at half-past Two o'clock.